4 ms·

How would you explain planes then? We have had autopilot for awhile but there is no law that planes be autonomous. Anyway, the question is who is liable. If we

by babesh 14y ago

How would you explain planes then? We have had autopilot for awhile but there is no law that planes be autonomous. Anyway, the question is who is liable. If we take the plane industry as an example, then if the autopilot is at fault the seller is liable. It is not reasonable for an autonomous vehicle to say 'I give up, have the controls back' whenever it is about to crash. Especially not if the would be driver cannot drive (blind, elderly, young children, etc...) The only issue is that Google and other autonomous car manufacturers don't want to be liable because the potential liability will be enormous but they want autonomous cars. The prediction is that those companies will try/are trying to get legislation to shift liability to the owners of the cars possibly as part of their insurance (autonomous car coverage). Another question is if a machine kills a human even if by accident, is the entity who created the machine at fault? Again, it will be a matter of politics and power rather than right and wrong. If it was otherwise, corporate officeholders would have long been in jail.

crusso 14y ago
How would you explain planes then? The FAA decrees lots of safety equipment to be present and used on commercial aircraft. It's worth noting that plane autopilots are not at the door-to-door level that we're talking about with autonomous cars. Also, Pilots are much better trained than drivers, so there's less impetus to get them away from the controls. Sooner or later, though, planes will be flown completely by wire. When it's demonstrable that autonomous planes fly better than real pilots gate-to-gate, that will become legally enforced. Anyway, the question is who is liable In this sub-thread, I was just addressing the previous poster who said that he would never own an autonomous vehicle. Just to throw my two cents in... in all likelihood, Google will need to demonstrate that their vehicles are more safe than "normal drivers". When you buy a Google car, you will need to buy auto insurance that covers an autonomous vehicle. Depending upon actuarial tables, that insurance will be more or less than your current insurance. Google's liability would likely only extend to extreme defects in the AI and/or death-causing defects that are systemic and can be shown to be the result of negligence or not disclosed to customers. politics and power rather than right and wrong I object to the immediate contention that you or anyone else really knows what's right or wrong at this point. Your statement above "to shift liability to the owners of the cars" gives away where you think liability lies. I don't think that's at all clear. If Google creates all the cars from here on out and deaths on the highway are cut in half... does that mean that they're liable for the deaths that still occur? That number of deaths would have occurred anyway. Google did nothing wrong, they actually saved tens of thousands of lives. So what's that worth? Suing them out of existence for the deaths they didn't prevent? In order to book those lives saved, we'll all need to pay for our own insurance for most accidents.

by babesh 14y ago

crusso 14y ago

How would you explain planes then? The FAA decrees lots of safety equipment to be present and used on commercial aircraft. It's worth noting that plane autopilots are not at the door-to-door level that we're talking about with autonomous cars. Also, Pilots are much better trained than drivers, so there's less impetus to get them away from the controls. Sooner or later, though, planes will be flown completely by wire. When it's demonstrable that autonomous planes fly better than real pilots gate-to-gate, that will become legally enforced. Anyway, the question is who is liable In this sub-thread, I was just addressing the previous poster who said that he would never own an autonomous vehicle. Just to throw my two cents in... in all likelihood, Google will need to demonstrate that their vehicles are more safe than "normal drivers". When you buy a Google car, you will need to buy auto insurance that covers an autonomous vehicle. Depending upon actuarial tables, that insurance will be more or less than your current insurance. Google's liability would likely only extend to extreme defects in the AI and/or death-causing defects that are systemic and can be shown to be the result of negligence or not disclosed to customers. politics and power rather than right and wrong I object to the immediate contention that you or anyone else really knows what's right or wrong at this point. Your statement above "to shift liability to the owners of the cars" gives away where you think liability lies. I don't think that's at all clear. If Google creates all the cars from here on out and deaths on the highway are cut in half... does that mean that they're liable for the deaths that still occur? That number of deaths would have occurred anyway. Google did nothing wrong, they actually saved tens of thousands of lives. So what's that worth? Suing them out of existence for the deaths they didn't prevent? In order to book those lives saved, we'll all need to pay for our own insurance for most accidents.